Anti-Feminism?
Tonight, I was going to blog some thoughts about Toni Morrison, identity, and otherness. I might still if I have a chance, but tonight I am particularly interested in a conversation that ensued today on Twitter. Jay Breeds, (@objectifychicks) started sort of poking fun at my feminism, so I naturally started poking around his/her profile a bit. The bio reads: “Defeating feminism by revealing feminism” and the tweets are basically just poking fun at feminism. Although I think this might just be a gimmick, he/she touts him/herself as an anti-feminist, and even tags tweets as such. However, when asked to define the views of the anti-feminist, he/she said: “I believe, correctly, that one has to be retarded to believe that feminism is true.” This was unhelpful, to say the least, to my understanding of the anti-feminist mentality. I really didn’t want to argue; I just wanted to understand.
In all of my conversations about civil rights, I have come to accept a few things. There are racists, white supremacists, chauvinists, homophobic people, and those against certain religions. I’m sure I’m missing some group here, but my point is clear: hatred is alive and well in the world. The thing is, as misguided as I think they are, I understand the arguments behind most of these forms of hatred. Mostly, this is because the arguments are detailed and supported. I was looking for the same thing from @objectifychicks, but didn’t get it.
Maybe I can’t wrap my head around this because I grew up encouraged to be independent and outspoken, with an understanding of feminism. I understand there are men out there who want their wives to be trophy wives or to “know her place” as it were, but I thought general chauvinism and societal inequality was the end of it. I did not think anti-feminism was alive and well.
My question to you is this: Without getting snarky, can someone explain the concept of and rationale behind anti-feminism to me? What is the difference between anti-feminism and chauvinism? Are there any famous anti-feminists I can point to in further research and writing?
I might sometimes consider myself an anti-feminist. What I mean by that is that I am against the feminist movement.
I do not believe that women are inferior to men, but I do not believe a position that women as women are not inferior to men as men in any sense requires the demands the feminist movement made and makes to be made.
I disagree with democracy in general, so the whole votes for women thing was in my opinion a dead end campaign. I disagree that fighting to be able to work in meaningless pointless jobs just like men get to is a particularly brilliant campaign either. The attempts by feminists to empower women have often degenerated into an individualist consumerist ethic of “I am entitled to the things I want” and since most people, male or female, are idiots and want stupid cheap tacky things, this had if anything led to the creation of an enormous industry of products for women who think anyone telling them they shouldn’t buy stupid crappy products, magazines, slutty clothes, etc etc are just stopping them doing what they want, which they are entitled to do and anyone who says they shouldn’t is “patronising”.
Then there is the breakdown of the family, which is …in the end, leading to social instability. Liberals like that of course, they want instability, its what liberalism is all about, but for those of us who are conservative and like stable social values its frankly distressing and exhausting.
Sure, there are famous anti-feminists — Phyllis Schlafly is the most prominent.
That aside, however, in my opinion, there’s really no point in trying to understand or argue with the likes of @objectifychicks. While I certainly don’t discourage trying to understand people with diametrically opposed points of view, this guy is a troll, and trolls have precisely zero interest in discussion or debate. They’re there to do what trolls do, period, and the worst thing you can do is give them the attention they crave.
I am saying I don’t think women are inferior to men, but that not being inferior does not mean an intrinsic entitlement to vote, work in particular fields, earn particular incomes, be able to kill inconvenient fetuses etc.
As for feminism and the breakdown of the family, I believe that feminism resulted in the attitude that the double standard was wrong, that women (who can get pregnant) should be allowed to be as promiscuous as men are allowed to. The double standard is unfair, men should not be allowed to be so promiscuous either, but in the end, the death of the double standard has led to the breakdown of the family, as has the ease with which divorce has become possible, the promotion of birth control etc etc. Easier divorce and birth control have been major issues for feminists.
As for Ms. Marsden’s comment above, I’ve discovered over the years that one of the surest indicators of someone who has nothing worthwhile to say is the statement “most people are idiots” or its many variations. Indeed, Ms. Marsden’s post is a pretty good example of why I’ve come to that conclusion.
Sorry, I mean all people. I certainly include myself at least.
When I hear “anti-feminist,” I typically interpret it as against the feminist movement, or against popular (negative) stereotypes of feminists and prescribed “feminist” behaviors, which they assume apply to all people who identify as feminists (when in fact many feminists probably also disagree with those same stereotypes and behaviors). For that very reason (the fact that they might actually agree on many things) discussion between so-called feminists and so-called anti-feminists could be very productive and enlightening. But that doesn’t man @objectifychicks is the person to have that conversation with. A sentence such as “I believe, correctly, that one has to be retarded to believe that feminism is true,” doesn’t even make SENSE, whether you have issues with his political/social beliefs or not.
No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who’s not interested in being coherent.
I never seem to think carefully enough before I respond, and always end up having to leave two comments…
But I guess my final thought is that the best thing to do for “our” cause is to just ignore dopes like this. He (or she) is OUT there specifically to provoke feminists. Getting others to notice is exactly what this person wants.
On a slightly unrelated note, if tweeps are your twitter peeps, can tweebs be twitter dweebs?
Pingback:Literacy in the Feminist Blogging Community: Amanda ReCupido « Small Strokes
I agree with Becky W that discussion between feminists and anti-feminists could prove productive and enlightening. Productive in the sense that as feminists we are able to see the continuum of anti-feminist thought. The comments on twitter or any other places we may find them today have an interesting history from the past with many of the same arguements and ideas being used. Anti-feminists often accuse feminists of ‘going on’ about the same thing, that issues prominent to feminism in the 60s (and 70s in Australia) are outdated because they have already been achieved. But what anti-feminists don’t realise is that their own arguments from today are the same or similar from 10, 20, 30 even 100 years ago.
Pingback:Weekly Rundown: 8/1 – 8/7/2009 « Small Strokes
(I apologize for any typos as I’m writing with a mild migraine right now)
Anti-feminism comes in two forms. One form, for the most part, is an oppositional stance usually built from misconceptions. These misconceptions can include, “feminists hate men”, “feminists don’t care about how men are affected by gender problems”, “feminists are taking away women’s choices by forcing us to be professionals only, even if we don’t want to be” and etcetera.
Once these misconceptions are cleared the antifeminist either reevaluates their view or gets defensive and tries to use a small vocal minority to justify being mad at feminism (which is more stubbornness and a dislike of being wrong than anything)
The other form is actually oppression and privilege enablement, couched in latent misogyny (or obvious misogyny). Those forms of anti feminists genuinely believe that woman are either inferior or don’t deserve the options and rights that men possess. While their reasons may vary intensely (like Miss Sophia up there, religion and cynicism out of control often plays a role) they are united by the fact that they see feminism as a threat to this point of view. They are often prone to misconceptions (like the flawed and really quite silly idea that the family is breaking down due to feminism) but are far more likely to cling to those misconceptions in the face of evidence because of strongly ingrained and trained beliefs regarding women and men.
The former is usually easier to have discourse with than the latter.
But that objectifychicks guy is just a low skill troll. Anti-feminism is his gimmick, his niche for trolling. Which is a poor niche in general because it’s so utterly typical in society for a guy to act like that. So it tends to result in some of the most unoriginal and seriously boring trolling ever devised.